I CRY FOR YOU, MALAYSIA- PART II

I think, if asked to say what makes me saddest about my country, my answer would be the nature and level of political dialogue in general, and the upcoming election in particular. The God-honest truth is, to me, this election is really a choice between a rock and a hard place. 

Now, let's not be hasty to judge my calculus here. If I could vote in the election, my vote would go to the Opposition coalition, but only in the interest of opening up the political climate and eventually forcing both parties to start coming up with really intelligent, non-populist policy discourse.

My belief is the Opposition is not going to really bring the change I'd like to see in this country. The truth is, they've based their pitch on two pillars: the first, that the National Alliance has ruled long enough, and the second, that the Alliance's long rule has led to unforgivable corruption in nearly every level of government.

The Opposition's contention on corruption is welcome and essential for the nation, but I wonder how much they are overstating their immediate ability to combat the problem.

This corruption focus has been the core of nearly everything the Opposition has talked about. Deficit growing too big? End corruption. Funds needed to improve public services. End corruption. And so on. You hardly hear much else from Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim and Co.

Now, I'm not saying the increased heat on corruption is a bad thing. But there are two main reasons I won't give the Opposition as much credit for it as many others do. The first is the sheer scale of the problem. Much of the Opposition calculus underestimates the simple reality that in a nation where corruption is as prevalent as ours, getting rid of it is not going to happen as easily, quickly, or thoroughly as many of their other presumptive policies require. 

Second, after corruption, what then? If you ask me, much of what's in the Opposition's Common Policy Platform isn't really very different from what the National Alliance could come up with. No successful democracy can thrive with one party in support of heavy government intervention in the economy, and the other proposing more government intervention in the economy (which is clearly a separate issue from PARTY intervention in the economy). 

The Pakatan Rakyat's Common Policy Platform and their First 100 Day promises range from the  'not enough' to downright scary.

I want the abolition of the special rights and privileges. I want a serious discussion on ending any and all subsidies and price controls. I believe we need a party that's going to fight for a minimally sized federal government (again, which is quite different from fighting for keeping parties away from business). I believe we need a party that can start putting forward the case for ending most forms of redistribution of wealth, instead of simply deciding what's the best way to redistribute income. And I want parties to allow members to speak their minds freely, without being tossed out for challenging official party doctrine. 

Sometimes, I wonder if Mr. Ibrahim will have the political courage to  ask the people to do some difficult but necessary things.

I desperately want to see this somewhere, ANYWHERE, in our political situation. But I don't. So for me, an Opposition vote isn't a vote of faith in them, but more a desire that, with the rise of a real two party system, we can see a move towards some real, realistic policy. I'll credit the Opposition for their boldness and commitment to cleaner government, but Malaysia needs far more than just that.

I CRY FOR YOU, MALAYSIA- PART I

In Malaysia, religion plays an outsize role in daily life, far more than as simply a personal guide to virtuous living. Enshrined in the Constitution as the official religion, it is the basis for many laws, and tales of it's enforcement in people's lives colour national discourse. For more than fifty years, that has been the way it is.

Which is to say, problematic. For starters, it protects the continued violation of a basic human right, that of freedom of religion. Islam's status means that its commandment that adherents never leave the faith is enforced with chilling rigidity by the State Religious Departments. This is in direct contravention of Articles 2 and 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the former states 'everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms.... in this Declaration, without distinction of... religion', while the latter not only affirms freedom of religion, but also affirms a right to conversion

We've ratified the Declaration. How about truly putting it into practice, and not ignoring the bits that challenge our status quo?

But this isn't simply a matter of violating abstract freedoms. The reality is, religion is a human construct, and needs to update its collective psychology every now and then, and conversions are a crude but effective way of both indicating if that is happening, and an incentive to stay relevant and disciplined. Take this mechanism away, and religious thinking begins to ossify. That's likely why many youth see their religious leaders as anachronistic and why social ills are becoming more prevalent among Muslim youth.

The no-conversion rule has a significant impact on other religions in Malaysia, as they are banned from proselytizing to Muslims. Arrests of supposed proselytizers aside, the rule has led to a mindset of suspicion and hostility, with the some Malay newspapers particularly prone to spread baseless rumours about the simplest things, choking off cross-cultural exchange and deepening the divide. Also, Islam's protected status means the official Sunni Islam of the Shafi'i school of thought can rely on security forces to act against other sects, instead of going head to head in real theological debate, which further solidifies the sense of invulnerability and disconnect.

The sheltering of Islam by its official status means clerics will eventually grow further and further away from its flock.

Islam's status also means it has been intensely politicised. You hear stories of parties saying voting for them is the Islamic thing to do, and in Malaysia, any moral misstep can be career assassination. Not only does this distract from real, productive policy discussion, it  also taints the beauty of Islam as a religion. History shows the comfort of state patronage breeds corruption in a religion's higher echelons; religion becomes another tool of statecraft, instead of an internal moral compass.

Crude, but broadly accurate. Need I say more?

Plus, religion is an intensely private relationship between you and God/Allah. Thrusting it nakedly into the public eye infuses it with tribalism, anger and partisanship, bespoiling its beauty.

As I leave Malaysia, one of my greatest wishes is for no religion to hold an official status here, that conversion and preaching can occur freely, and that the Sharia legal system can be reformed to make it truly subservient to civil law and used in family cases that ONLY affect Muslims. Sure, it's been done one way for 55 years now, but that doesn't automatically preclude change.

This is my first cry for you, Malaysia.

PAUL RYAN- NOT BAD, BUT....

Weeks of speculation finally culminated Saturday with Mitt Romney’s announcement of Paul Ryan as his running mate for the 2012 US Presidential election. And it isn’t hard to see why. With his youth and popularity, Mr. Ryan brings a powerful energy to the ticket, and a sense of warmth that the often-wooden Mr. Romney lacks on the trail. Plus, as a wonkish budget guru, there is no risk of him saying anything overwhelmingly stupid, a la Palin.

Having said that, though, adding Mr. Ryan to the ticket probably made it a whole lot harder.

The two men have an obvious chemistry, and Mr. Ryan is far more comfortable talking to voters on the trail.

We’ll start with his economic and fiscal ideas. Mr. Ryan has not been one of those obstructionist Republicans, content to vote no to a Democratic bill and stop there. Rather, he has been particularly pronounced in championing alternative budgets and deficit reduction plans of his own.  There are two problems with the Ryan plans (The Roadmap for America's Future Acts and alternative budgets in 2009, 2010 and 2012).

The first is its treatment of Medicare and Medicaid. On the former, Mr. Ryan’s plan calls for defined payments to seniors, who can then use the money to buy private or government insurance plans. Mr. Ryan assumes competition between providers will drive insurance costs down, and the plan’s proposed payouts are to increase at a rate slightly more than GDP grows. Mr. Ryan wants Medicaid funding to be slashed by $ 735 billion over ten years, and the cash given back to states to spend as they see fit.

And therein lies the problem. Back when Mr. Ryan came out with his deficit plan, the bill received a great deal of fanfare from Republicans before it quietly sunk under the radar. One of the main reasons for this was seniors, for whom Medicare is an extremely emotive issue, and a plan that makes them pay significantly more out of their own pockets, as the Congressional Budget Office reports, is not going to go anywhere.

Mr. Ryan with his 2012 budget proposal 'The Path to American Prosperity'

Political commentators are already voicing concerns on the impact such a budget would have on one of the most important states this election- Florida, where seniors are a more powerful force than they are anywhere else in the nation. A July 9 Rasmussen Reports poll gave Mr. Romney 46% support to Mr. Obama's 45%, which means anything could happen from now until November.  

The Romney campaign had always been rather vague on specific economic and fiscal policy. Now that Mr. Ryan’s given the ticket details, he’s given a new boost to Barack Obama’s constant line of attack that a Romney presidency would gut the middle class to enrich the wealthy. That would be the second problem with Mr. Ryan’s deficit plan- it calls for eliminating all taxes on capital gains, interest, and stock dividends and to cut the top tax rate by a full ten percentage points.

A snapshot of what the Obama team has (unsurprisingly) said about Mr. Ryan. Expect more of the same from the President's team.

With all that, it’s hard to see why Mr. Romney would want to burden his (probably intentionally vague) campaign with such politically troubling detail. In my opinion, conservatives would have voted for unexciting Mr. Romney anyway; that’s how much they dislike Mr. Obama. The question from here on out is simple: will Messrs. Romney and Ryan do well enough at explaining the economic rationale of such an extensive hacking of the welfare state to independents? Maybe; Mr. Romney is a businessman after all, but I'm skeptical.

It has been famously said that the job of Vice President is ‘not worth a bucket of warm piss’. Still, recent vice presidents have been pivotal enough- look at Dick Cheney on national security and Joe Biden on the Afghanistan-Pakistan conundrum. Mr. Ryan looks to be as important, whether he eventually emerges a help or hindrance.  

THE SEARCH FOR HOPE CONTINUES

These days, American politics does not inspire much confidence in anyone. Sadly, it could get worse, as eleven states- Texas, Georgia, and Tennessee among them- have passed strict laws requiring photo IDs before a person can vote. State governors say the new rules are meant to curb voting fraud, but in practice, the new laws will prevent many legitimate voters from casting their ballots.


The voters shut out are primarily, black, poor and elderly. On the whole, 11% of eligible voters don't have updated, state issued photo IDs; the percentage rises to 25%, 15% (among those making less than $ 35 K a year) and 18% respectively. These groups are likelier to lack driver's licences, be born out of state, work multiple jobs or have disabilities, which means they cannot afford the extensive and expensive paperwork required for state IDs. Many government services have never needed state IDs, and things like employee and student cards are not accepted by many of the states' new laws.

Texas Governor and former presidential candidate Rick Perry has declared his support for the law. His state's version would allow concealed-carry handgun licences as valid ID, but not employee or student IDs.

The scale of disenfranchisement is far more extensive than any fraud the laws seek to prevent. Fraud is not, as supporters of the laws claim, a serious issue in American elections- a 2011 report by the Republican National Lawyers Association found 400 election fraud prosecutions in the US over the past decade, not even one per state per year. Between 1997 and 2010, in Kansas, there were 7 convictions for voter fraud, none for voter impersonation- the true kind of fraud voter IDs would stop.


By contrast, the new laws could adversely affect more than five million voters. As it is, in 2008, 2.2 million registered voters did not vote because they lacked proper ID.

More than anything, the new laws appear to be the latest weapon in a tragically vitriolic campaign for November's elections, as if the attack ads weren't bad enough.

 To me, this move is nakedly political, coming as it is in states under Republican control, some of which are key battlegrounds this November. Seeking an advantage in a close election, Republicans must surely have realised the new laws will bar many voters who traditionally vote Democratic. One Republican official in Pennsylvania said as much, even. 

Eric Holder, who recently called the new laws 'poll taxes' , has, as Attorney General, the power to prevent the laws' implementation.

If states insist on laws like this, even though they don't solve the true fraud that DOES occur in American elections, then they should also undertake a commitment to provide free IDs to everyone who lacks it.


Under the Voting Rights Act of 1964, states with a history of discrimination must obtain permission from the Department of Justice or the Appeals Court of the Washington D.C. Circuit to change election laws, and its likely both these institutions will strike down many of these laws. Still, if Republicans agree there is a crisis of faith in American politics, they should realize it is not at the ballot box, but up on Capitol Hill, where the word 'compromise' has long been forgotten.

QAT OFF

It is a given fact that every country has one curious feature, which, to foreign observers at first seems jarring, then becomes so normal that it fades into the background, like bold wallpaper at an acquaintance's house. In Yemen, this feature is qat (also spelled khat or gat), a mildly stimulative leaf chewed by nearly everyone.

Like many curious features though, qat is slowly, but surely, killing Yemen.

Terraced qat fields near Wadi Dhahr

Economically speaking, it's never a good idea to plant a crop that's banned in most developed countries, and hence, is only purchased by locals, who are, in any case, poor (Yemen has a GDP per capita of just 2600 USD). In 2005, the total area under cultivation was 123, 933 hectares, according to the Ministry of Agriculture. Given the MoA's estimate that this area grows by 12% a year, by the end of 2011, this area could be 244, 622 hectares! Such an extensive area would be of better economic use if dedicated to cash crops like coffee, of which Yemen used to be a major producer. It would be even better if the land was directed to construction of factories and other economic infrastructure.

Using this area of qat cultivation and Ethiopian production estimates, 244 622 hectares of land could produce over 100 000 tonnes of coffee a year. Assuming Arabica coffee beans are used to replace qat, this amount is currently valued at 218.7 million USD, translating to substantial profits for rural farmers.

Worse, qat uses up about 30 percent of Yemen's already scarce water supplies. Yemeni agriculture relies primarily on groundwater, as rainfall is scarce. If qat cultivation continues, the lack of good profits it brings will mean that the government and general public will not have sufficient finances to cope with rising water prices, never mind the social and industrial consequences such a rise would entail.

Moreover, qat is chewed in afternoon sessions that begin after the Yemeni workday ends at 2-3 p.m. These sessions last about 3-4 hours and are social events in themselves. Logically speaking, time wasted in this way could be put to better use, mainly for longer (and more productive) workdays. It is difficult to directly connect the national qat addiction to Yemen's lack of development, but a quick comparision of the country with many of it's Arab neighbors is telling indeed.

Men chew qat in a hut overlooking the crop in Yemen.
Qat chewing sessions can last up to five hours a day.

In fact, qat is even regarded in playing a negative role in the Yemeni protests against President Ali Abdullah Saleh. Protesters quietly dispersed every afternoon to chew qat, meaning that the anti-government momentum that toppled Tunisia's and Egypt's rulers was just not there. This despite the fact that economic conditions in Yemen are much worse than those of the other two nations. Yemeni's might endlessly disparage their political leaders at qat sessions, but until tribal militias clashed with government security forces, stunted by qat, that's all many of them do- talk.

Completely eradicating something which has got its claws so deeply sunk into a country is probably impossible. However, once the dust has settled in Yemen, a new government could begin by allocating land to other purposes and extending the workday. Post-revolution, Yemen will face many obstacles to progress. Here's hoping qat won't be a hurdle far into the future.

EQUALITY

Can true equality within a society ever be achieved? People have, for ages, been expressing the hope that we will live in a world where we are all equal, where divisions within society, especially wealth and class based divisions, will cease to exist. Entire governments have staked claims to power on the belief that they can create a truly egalitarian society.

But can true equality be achieved? No.

The reason for this is simple. All men are not created alike. Within a system, there will always be people who work harder, know how to bend the rules or are plain lucky. These people will end up richer and more successful. Inevitably, there will be people left at the bottom of the pile. 

Now, if governments start giving preferential treatment to those left out, that would in itself be a source of inequality, because not everyone is going to get such treatment. In that sense, there is another kind of inequality, in the way the government treats its people, as some people get special protection from it, and others don't.

Even with such handouts, there will be people who know how to put them to the best use, and people who take them for granted badly enough to end up just scraping by. Or even worse than before. Inequality cannot be eradicated, but it can be reduced.

Yet, governments still promise equality when it's impossible to achieve. In Malaysia, politics is essentially a battle of the Equalizers- which party (or coalition, rather) can truly achieve equality in our sorely divided country? Tragically, most of the solutions that would make a strong dent in inequality (improving rural education, eliminating quotas, and workfare instead of welfare) are often not the most catchy of political initiatives. For starters, they take time, and usually involve the disadvantaged community in effort of its own.

So what to do? The closest governments and societies can ever come to true equality is by providing equal opportunities for all. That means improving the standards of the educational facilities offered to the entire population, instead of using government funds to pay for excellent educational facilities for certain groups (i.e. MARA). It means a welfare system that focuses not on handouts, but on handups. It will also require all ethnic groups to do some heavy lifting, like rejecting the primacy of any particular group and eliminating vernacular education (more on that in another post, maybe). 

This is not a diatribe against welfare, mind. Just because inequality can't be eliminated doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Rather, it is a reminder that we can never be a truly equal society, and so the endless pursuit of quotas and other blunt force tools to eliminate inequality should be scrapped, because the harm they bring does not justify pursuing an impossible ideal. And it is an appeal to recognize that equality of opportunity is the best we can provide, and also that most (or all) forms of welfare should aim to put the disadvantaged peoples back into earning their own keep. Tying benefits to eventual employment or food aid to continued schooling are examples.

Inequality cannot be eliminated. But if governments give every person an equal (or as close to equal) chance for personal advancement while steering clear of quotas  and other blunt force preferential tools, we can go a good way to reducing it. 

DURBAN: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY

I must say, I was surprised (pleasantly) when I heard of a global climate deal coming out of Durban, South Africa. With the global economic climate being what it is, I hadn't even remembered the talks were on this year! If I had, I wouldn't have expected any sort of deal, because of aforementioned economic crisis.

Anyway, what do we have here? The negotiators at Durban agreed on a format for a fund to help poor nations tackle global warming. Details are sketchy at the moment (at least for non-journalists like me), but with luck, the fund will focus more on fine-tuning existing technologies as well as paying for their implementation in developing countries. It should also allow for some form of overseeing body to ensure funds are not wasted, especially by trying to force technologies into areas where it can't work, or where the adoption of one 'green' technology causes some other form of environmental destruction. (Hydropower and non-cellulosic ethanol come to mind). Most importantly, the fund must provide means for poor people to adapt to the effects of climate change.

The COP17 pleasantly surprised most fence-sitters with what came out of it

But that's the small fries of the talks. The talks far more significant achievement is this: that the Kyoto Protocol be extended until 2017 (previously set to expire in 2012), that a new legally binding deal be negotiated next year, and that developing countries accept legally binding emissions targets in future.

On the face of it, this is simply standard UN kick the can down the road behavior. But look closely. For starters, developed countries have accepted, more concretely, that they do need to help poor countries in tackling the problem. Since rich nations have historically caused much of the warming that we're now experiencing, that is fair. But since developing nation emissions have now surpassed that of developed countries, they should be legally bound to cut emissions too. And this new agreement finally gets them to do that, after years of insisting they should have the right to develop as they wish.

China and India agreed, with no small measure of reluctance, to commit themselves to cuts in future. 

Still, it's not all roses. This agreement is most definitely not the urgent action the Earth needs, as nations threatened by rising sea levels note. Scientists point out that delaying a deal for yet another year (with the prospect of more delays) means that it will be harder to keep the global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius, as stipulated in the Copenhagen accords. Then there is the downright ugly news. Japan, Russia and Canada will pull out of the extended period for the Kyoto Protocol, and that Australia and New Zealand might not join in.

Uglier still was the delegates focus on the exact language and phrasing of the various parts of the agreement. To quote, they were not free of the obsession with detail by which mediocre men think they are influencing events.

The delegates at Durban will have to do a lot better next year if the successor to Kyoto is going to have real meat to it.

All in all, to me, this is a moderate deal. The successes of having a climate deal after 2012, and of having developing nations commit to legally binding carbon cuts are important. Still, this deal will not go down as revolutionary (or even as particularly significant) because it is just too little. Too little decisive action, too little conviction, and too little financing..Hopefully, it will not be too late.

CLEANING HOUSE

The BERSIH 2.0 rally in Kuala Lumpur, scheduled for tomorrow could have represented a welcome change in Malaysian democracy. The organization, now banned, has some very legitimate criticisms of the Malaysian electoral process, which, if acknowledged, could reduce some of the endless mud-slinging by defeated politicians and focus more attention on more pressing issues.

BERSIH's demands are not confined to elections either. They include several demands to implement the very foundations of a modern, open democracy that Malaysia lacks, either completely or to a worrying degree. Among these are demands to strengthen public institutions, stopping corruption and stopping dirty politics.

The ideas offered by BERSIH, by and large, are what is needed to make Malaysian politics cleaner, more mature and more substantive.

These last three demands are probably the most important, mainly because putting them in place largely clears up the whole vote-fraud she-bang. In addition, they also ensure that other aspects of Malaysian political life, like the courts and media remain impartial. This impartiality is important to ensure that people who could shake up Malaysian politics are not discriminated against, and also so idealistic youth are not discouraged from entering politics.

Even if none of BERSIH's demands are heeded by the Electoral Commission, the rally would still be a welcome exercise in free speech, and freedom of expression. It would show that there are people whose brains are not stultified by the constant lack of depth of Malaysian politics. And it raises uncomfortable questions that must be addressed sooner rather than later, instead of simply sweeping them under the carpet and maintaining a false image of a united, peaceful and progressive society.

Unfortunately, it is this lack of depth that causes Malaysian's politicians to think rally = chaos. And also to believe BERSIH is Communist, when opportunistic groups (unaffiliated with BERSIH) simply distributed pamphlets in support of the MCP.

Idiots like Ibrahim Ali, Pasir Mas MP, are the ones who have jeopardised Malaysia's democracy by threatening confrontations in response to legitimate exercises of free speech.

Rallies are peaceful things, if controlled by the police and kept violence free. What's made this one potentially chaotic is the threat by pro-government rowdies (like UMNO Youth and Perkasa) to have counter rallies and confrontations. And this lot, being uneducated and uncouth, are the violent ones. But the government lacks the brains to distinguish this and has used them as part of the excuse to ban BERSIH.

The government response has also jeopardized Najib Tun Razak's efforts to paint his government as open, liberal and moderate. Equally bone-headed has been the suggestion to BERSIH to mass in a stadium, knowing full-well no municipal government will allow a rally by a banned group in any of it's stadiums.

Najib Razak's efforts to win back the electorate with moderate politics coupled with economic transformation has foundered thanks to his administration's poor response to BERSIH.

The government should recognize it is to it's advantage to heed BERSIH's demands. If not, the target's it has set itself under the GTP and ETP become very much harder to achieve, especially the ones regarding foreign investment. And it will find itself booted out of office at the next election, Najib's popularity notwithstanding.

HELPING HANDS IN AFGHANISTAN

As Afghanistan, with the fresh encouragement given it by the death of Osama bin Laden, seeks to haul itself out of chaos, it cannot escape an observer's notice that there are many players vying to claim some sort of stake in the country's future. For the most part, this, in keeping with the trend of global integration of economies, is beneficial to the country, but must also be managed properly.

The most prominent international player would no doubt be the US, but not only because of the American combat brigades stationed there. American businesses are also viewing Afghanistan as a location ripe for investment, albeit with increased security needs; as of September 2009, there were 10712 Defense Department security contractors in the country. The fact that the Afghan economy grew by 13.5% in 2007 has assured investors that Afghanistan can be a viable business opportunity.
PepsiCo's planned plant in Afghanistan augurs well for Afghan employment, as well as the Afghan consumer products market.

That is why PepsiCo, in April 2011, signed a deal with Dubai-based Alokozay Group to manufacture and distribute Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, 7 UP and Mountain Dew in Afghanistan, via a $60 million bottling plant in Kabul. The plant, expected to come online in 2012, is estimated to create 3000 direct and indirect jobs.

But it's not just business that attracts Americans to Afghanistan. The Department of Defense Education Activity programme recruits and sends teachers to Afghanistan. Non-profit education outfits are also in the game, such as the American University of Afghanistan, which operates on the US liberal arts model and has 780 students as of 2011.The hope is that Western educational efforts will develop strong human capital in the country, as well as a generation of tolerant and open-minded youth to lead Afghanistan in future.

Afghan girls in an American run school. Focusing on education would provide better alternatives than the Taliban to Afghanistan's youth, and liberate oppressed communities like the Hazara.

Another major player in Afghanistan is India, whose efforts have been met with contempt by erstwhile rival Pakistan. Since 2001, India has given about$1.2 billion in aid to Afghanistan, in addition to undertaking several major infrastructure projects, like the construction of the Afghan parliament (scheduled for completion this year). Bilateral trade between the two countries stood at $358 million in March 2008.

The killing of bin Laden on Pakistani soil tarnished Pakistan's image in both Kabul and Washington; India, seeking to press this advantage, pledged on 12^th May to bring total aid up to $2 billion, while also beginning to train Afghan police and forming an Afghan female police battalion.

The problem with India's dreams is simply that Pakistan would not like it. The fact remains that the Taliban was created, funded and armed by Pakistan to gain leverage in Afghanistan, which it hoped would then be an ally against India. After all, Pakistan never purged the Taliban on its soil until strict demands by the US. At the same time, one recalls Baitullah Mehsud's 2008 pledge to fight alongside the Pakistani government if war broke out with India. An Indo-Pakistani power struggle over Afghanistan would further destabilise the country's safety, and hence, its economic prospects.
Though Baitullah Mehsud is no more, the Pakistani-created terror network he helmed, the Taliban, continues to ravage Afghanistan.

Inevitably, China is also looking to boost its profile in Afghanistan. Chinese companies go about winning resource contracts in the country in much the same way they have been doing so in Africa. (In fact, the method is actually called the Angola model). For example, in February 2010,China Metallurgical Group Corporation won a contract to mine Afghanistan's Aymak copper mine with a $3.4 billion bid that included a commitment to build a power plant, a railway that will link the mine, the smelter and China (!), schools, roads and mosques. The deal also promised that all non-managerial staff will be Afghans in five years.
China's method of securing contract's in resource rich developing countries creates indirect GDP growth by bringing with it roads, schools and, in Afghanistan, mosques.

The fact that these countries are willing to make huge economic bets on the future of Afghanistan augurs well for that future, as well as American efforts at maintaining security in the country. Whatever the case for foreign investment, eventually Afghanistan must be strong enough to prioritize domestic investment, sales and consumption. For now though, here's to Afghanistan's future, to the continued growth of its people.

STAY THE COURSE

The ongoing quake-and-tsunami caused nuclear crisis in Japan has stoked fears in Malaysia over whether Malaysia should build a nuclear power plant. Currently, under the government’s Economic Transformation Plan, such a plant aims to become reality by 2021 (2016 at the earliest).

Here’s why we should stay the course.

From an energy point of view, the fact remains that come mid-decade (worst-case scenario), fossil fuels will become uneconomical as a power source. Nuclear power plants are the most powerful of the other energy options out there- producing 3600 kW per acre, while solar produces between 74 kW and 222 kW of power per acre.

A conventional nuclear reactor. The public's misconceptions concerning the safety of nuclear power should be countered with the facts- France produces 80% of it's power from accident-free nuclear energy.

Other fuel sources have much bigger failings. In Malaysia, strong breezes are to be found only at the coasts and in mountains. Building wind turbines in such areas would hurt tourism revenues and contribute further to the loss of Malaysia’s forest cover, of which only 56% remains. The same argument goes against hydropower. Remember, Malaysia has a pledge to maintain 50% of her forest cover under the Rio Earth Summit.

Wind turbines would ruin tourism to Malaysia's beaches and hill getaways. At a time when new tourist destinations are popping up with alarming speed, we do not need more turn-offs.

Solar power will continue to suffer from the problem of overcast and night-darkened skies for a while yet. Technologies like heated salt and MIT researcher David Nocera's fuel cells are on the horizon to mitigate this, but logically speaking, hinging a country’s electricity generation on the weather doesn’t seem very wise. Solar can and should play a major role in Malaysia’s energy future, but shelving nuclear power in favour of it is the wrong move.

Nuclear power’s safety issues are decisively handled by several new technologies on the horizon. The first of these are the fourth generation nuclear reactors, scheduled to be able to go online by 2021. One model, known as the Very High Temperature Reactor, uses unreactive helium as a coolant, and has a graphite composed core, meaning a high heat capacity and structural stability at superhigh temperatures.

A scaled model of a Very-High Temperature Reactor, one type of Generation 4 nuclear power plant.

Moreover, Toshiba Corp. and NuScale Power have both come up with what are best called nuclear batteries. Mini power plants buried in the ground, these cheap reactors can produce 10-45 megawatts of power, with Toshiba’s reactor lasting 30 years. The best feature? They are safe, one because the whole system is submerged under water, the other because it has no moving parts and a dual mechanism to prevent meltdown.

These mini nuclear reactors offer exciting possibilities for power in remote areas, as well as a putting less strain on fragile electrical grids in developing nations.

It is plain here that the options for Malaysia to keep her power plant plan on track are available. The question here is whether the Malaysian government has the political will to slug it out with the opposition, and the eloquence to explain the facts to the public. The facts are with us. Let us keep the faith.

THE EFFECTS OF THE ATTACK

There can be no real doubt that today, multiculturalism is under attack from the forces of integration and plain racism. All over the West, the powers that be (even in normally mild-mannered states) have begun a massive crackdown on the freedom of migrants to express their cultures, whether by banning burqas, minarets or outright deportations of minorities (as in France’s campaign against Gypsies)

It is not very difficult to ascertain the causes of this reprehensible behavior. In Europe, politicians are desperate for votes following the global recession, and the Euro’s current troubles. To that end, they have made attacking migrants (and their culture) a political staple to win over voters on the far-right. These attacks also have an appeal to those mainstream voters who mistakenly believe that migrants ‘steal’ local jobs.

In America, the vitriol hurled by right-wingers against Muslims has its’ roots in the Sept. 11 attacks, which (more or less) turned the word ‘Islam’ into mud. The recent proposal for a Muslim community centre a couple blocks away from the site of the WTC, Newt Gingrich’s crusade against ‘sharia’ and a growing sense that moderate Muslims do little to oppose their radical co-religionists have rekindled the old xenophobia.

Whatever the causes, the stampede against multiculturalism will have numerous ill effects, the first of which is a dangerous increase in terrorist recruitment. It is very easy for the propaganda agents of al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba to use bans on burqas and mosque minarets as propaganda that the West is against Islam. This would obviously succeed in recruiting new radicals willing to strike at civilian targets throughout the West and in Western military bases.

Moreover, it is likely that anti-Muslim policies will put Muslims on the defensive, which would cause them to elect harder-line politicians of their own. Once that happens, cooperation on urgent Middle Eastern and global issues, like Palestine, would become markedly harder, as these politicians shirk from working with the West. The Palestinian peace process does not need more leaders like Ahmadinejad, revered domestically largely because of his grandstanding against the West.

At the same time, it will become harder for Western democratic leaders to speak out against human-rights abuses worldwide, which increases the likelihood of further unrest similar to that of Egypt’s.

These effects would combine to further, significant economic hardship. The fact remains that if America seeks economic growth in an era of high domestic consumer indebtedness, it has to look to exports. There is little point in making consumers in fast growing Muslim countries disdain American exports by enacting anti-Muslim laws and such.

More importantly, the West can ill-afford to alienate its’ migrants, who bolster the falling birth rates in most European countries. With more young workers (both skilled and unskilled), it would be easier to foot the pension and medical bills of graying populations, as well as fill up numerous essential but unwanted jobs. True, at this point in time, there are few countries that beat the prosperity per capita of Western countries, but this being when most growth will come from developing countries (including the migrants own countries of origin), this will change sooner or later. And then, migrants will look for the country that most makes them feel welcome.

WHERE IT STANDS NOW

Right now, biotechnology is still widely regarded as an up-and-coming industry in developing countries, despite the fact that the industry has experienced three "waves" (green, red and white). In developed countries, it is an established, but fast growing sector, with governments having long promoted the industry, especially in the US and continental Europe.Curious little proteins called enzymes are the engine for the growth of white (industrial) biotechnology. Firms like Novozymes have recognzed this, and set up operations all over the world.

In the US, the main hub for biotechnology is the state of California. As with Silicon Valley, businesses and government have united to create a highly conducive atmosphere for biotechnology firms. For example, the Stem Cell Initiative promises 3 billion USD over 10 years (beginning 2006) from the Californian government for stem cell research in the state. The voters also seem enthusiastic about biotechnology: several public referendums on banning GM crops in California were rejected by the public with wide margins (61-39% in Butte County).

The third biggest biotech hub in the US, North Carolina, benefits from its educational excellence designed towards science careers, particularly biotechnology. While the state has invested about 1.2 billion USD over the past 10 years in biotech, biotech firms like the state because of the research triangle formed by North Carolina State University, the University of North Carolina and Duke University. But its not just a fanciful name, the triangle is home to the North Carolina Biotech Center.The community college system prepares students for technician jobs, and short courses in specific skills are also offered.

Duke University in North Carolina is one of the reasons why the state is such a thriving biotech hub. Countries wishing to expand their biotech industries should learn from this.

The US federal government has also been keen on biotechnology. While President Bush didn't exactly hold science in high esteem, President Obama has reached out to scientists, overturning stem-cell funding restrictions by executive order. The US stimulus programme allocated 8 billion USD to 12,000 research projects nationwide. A significant portion of the money has gone to keeping researchers salaries paid, but let's not underestimate that. There is no benefit to scientists going jobless, especially when they're trained in such a useful field.

Europe, meanwhile, really supports its' biotechnology sector. There are a total of 234 biotechnology parks in Europe; the UK alone has 56, France, 51. As of 2005, the 27 European member states invested 1 .208 billion Euros in the sector. While the recession did affect the industry, governments were quick tor respond: Norway gave the biotech industry a 300 million Euro bailout fund. On top of that, major business-enzyme players are present in Europe, while renewable raw materials are abundant in the continent.

The citizens of Europe have a misguided and irrational view of GM crops, which is holding back the sheer potential of Europe to contribute to new crop varieties and greater farm yields.

In Europe, white biotech is best known, partly because green biotech has a bad rap with the public. Part of the reason is the environmental effects of white biotech, which Europe seems very keen on; noting that carbon emissions could be cut by 17-65%.

Asia does not want to be left out of the field. India, while having instituted a moratorium on BT Brinjal, remains hopeful that biotech will help it pull off a second Green Revolution. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh recently set up a working group to look into ways to reduce food inflation; one of the group's recommendations was increased biotech investment. China, meanwhile, sees double digit growth in biotech, with the sector projected to reach a size of $ 9 billion by this year. The Chinese government, meanwhile, has given tax incentives (50% tax deductibility) and invested in quasi venture capital companies, causing total venture capital investment to rise by 22% from 2005 to 2006.

Other parts of Asia, like Malaysia, have immense natural potential for biotechnology research; after all, there are lush tropical rainforest throughout Asia, which provides raw materials for medical and industrial biotech. Malaysia, for example, is one of the 12 Mega Biodiversity sites in the world, and is working to capitalize on that.

Southeast Asia's lush tropical rainforests provide abundant source materials for biotechnology research. It is a great pity, then, that governments do little to check logging.

All in all, countries are seizing the exciting new opportunities in the field, although numerous obstacles remain. Some are plagued by hostile public reception to biotech, others by cumbersome bureaucracy, corruption and low intellectual-property protection.

However, it will not be good if the government meddles overmuch in the sector, this kills competition and is wasteful. Governments should provide the proper support mechanisms for science based businesses, and step back so innovation and competition set the field on fire.

HOW DO YOU FIX AN ECONOMY?

The American economy remains stuck in the doldrums, with unemployment remaining near 10% and continued weak credit despite near-zero interest rates. The housing market remains weak.

This does not seem likely to improve anytime soon, thanks largely to misplaced concern about the deficit and more deadlock anticipated in Congress. With Republicans opposing anything that adds on to the deficit, (although the $858 billion was allowed to pass just because it came as tax cuts), the government might be deprived of some of its best tools for cutting unemployment and restoring growth.

If congressional Republicans choose to beholden themselves to the hypocritical, anti-intellectual Tea Party Movement, the economy is on course for very poor economic growth.

The consensus among wise folk is that the US needs more fiscal stimulus. The initial $800 billion package was, odd as this may seem, too small and scattershot. Christina Romer, chairwoman of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, calculated the US needed $1.2 trillion of it. Plus, the meltdown was worse than thought when Romer was running the numbers

The bottom line here is simple: the government should dole out more money for infrastructure projects, small and medium businesses, and manufacturing. With more people employed, more taxes are paid and, depending on the project, GDP is increased in other ways, for example, constructing new solar plants encourages further investment by corporations and reduces fuel expenditures. The extension of the Bush tax cuts also encourages consumption as well as hiring.

The breakdown of the first stimulus plan. Congress must make sure the second one is more focused on job creation, skills training and small business support.

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate in economics writes in Newsweek (Issues 2011 edition) that "the cost of not spending is even higher". As he points out, workers lose their skills, and "human capital will be destroyed" if the country experiences high unemployment for years.

More importantly, the American economy needs to be rebalanced. There are two ways of doing this. Firstly is by moving the economy away from the dodgy financial services that started the whole mess in the first place. Worse, the swelling of the financial sector came at the expense of the manufacturing sector.

Data on Wikipedia shows the financial sector producing between 12-15% of total sales, receipts or shipments, ahead of construction (less than 6%) and not far behind manufacturing (just above 18%).

Shuttered factories testify to the slow but sure death of the manufacturing sector in the US. It is worth noting that the worst period of American job creation was during 2001-2007, the Bush years.

The second (probably more effective) way to rebalance the American economy is to boost exports. For too long, the US economy has been focused on domestic consumption, with too little income coming from exports. This does not make sense, because US know how (when sensibly utilized) produces beautiful, cutting-edge products that people desire. Plus, with US consumers also drowning in debt (household indebtedness stood at 132% of income in 2009) , they can no longer be counted upon like they once were as a source of growth.

So why then do these facts abound? The US Congress has not ratified free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and worst of all, South Korea. PayPal reports that only 14% of US merchants sell to overseas customers.

US exports clearly should be beefed up. Trade with developing markets like South America and Asia remain small, and will stay that way until more free-trade agreements are signed and approved.

The solution, then, is for the Obama administration to support more small businesses, which create the vast majority of jobs. Congress must also remove barriers to international trade, and thus encourage firms to sell to the rapidly growing middle class overseas.

These steps will not be easy to get through Congress, simply because 'stimulus' has become a four-letter word to voters. But Obama can use the silver tongue he wielded during his campaign here too.

He could point out that he's kept the tax cuts. He could also point out that the returns from the public investment (that's a nicer word than stimulus), would raise future income and tax revenues, which would help trim the debt. The bottom line is, spending now might be the best way to reduce debt in future.

A HALF HURRAH

Sorry for leaving the updating this late. I just finished my SPM, which is THE public exam in this country.

I couldn't believe my eyes when I turned to the world section of the newspaper and saw this:

UN CLIMATE DEAL WINS WIDE BACKING

The 2010 Climate Conference in Mexico took place amid widespread pessimism that governments had the will to unite to stop global warming. Instead, the world was pleasantly surprised.

After all, 2009's Copenhagen Climate Conference was nothing but a sugar-coated failure. And now this? At the 2010 conference in Cancun, Mexico?

This deal is actually a kind of Green Climate Fund, in which rich countries help poor nations mitigate, and cope with climate change. The Mexico-brokered proposal includes measures for sharing clean technologies, helping protect tropical forests, and helping poor nations adapt to the effects of global warming.

Under the Green Climate Fund, the fact that there will be global cooperation to preserve rainforests is heartening, as biodiversity will also benefit from the move.

Probably most inspiring was this line in the article "the United States, China and dozens of other countries rallied around the plan...". These countries were, as recently as weeks before the conference playing what seemed to be an endless blame game. Rich countries demanded the poor join them in taking action, while developing countries, led by China, demanded developed countries do their bit first, and kept using poverty as an excuse.

The expression on Nicolas Sarkozy's face displays perfectly how frustrating the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference was.

It is true, of course, that many underdeveloped countries need financial and technical aid to address global warming. But it's also true that many developing countries are rich enough to start, with many in better fiscal positions than the West. Brazil, China (who spent 45 billion dollars to polish its image for the 2008 Olympics) and India, for example, can tackle global warming without a fund. That said, the fund should be directed to poor countries, not developing countries. (I'm sure you understand the distinction).

The 45 billion USD that China spent on the Olympics could be used to build about 189 photovoltaic solar plants, each producing 53 MW of power to 15 000 homes.

The reason this is a half-success is that no binding deal to cut emissions by fixed amounts came out of the talks. Developed and developing countries simply agreed to postpone this (and their accountability dispute) to 2011. Plus, Bolivia remained opposed to the deal, meaning the decision cannot be formally adopted. No one (except for the negotiators, perhaps) is happy about this particular outcome.

Still, the fact that countries can act together is a huge boost to those of us who were losing hope. But there's more to do. Developing countries should start cleaning up their act (and not ignore their problems just because they were pointed out by an also-guilty developed country) while developed countries should take the lead, because regardless of who started the warming, all of us will have hell to pay.